A SECOND contender has entered the row over alleged censorship of Liverpool mayoral candidates’ campaign material.

Tony Mulhearn said he was told by Liverpool council bosses to alter his manifesto.

The Socialist candidate said he was advised he should take out references to privatisation of the NHS, Peel Holdings’ Liverpool Waters plans – and even a mention that the council was currently Labour-controlled.

The latest row follows Liberal group leader Cllr Steve Radford’s complaint that he had been instructed by chief executive and returning officer Ged Fitzgerald to remove a satirical reference to “Liverpool Misdirect”.

The council claims it is following guidelines set by the Electoral Commission about not including “irrelevant” material in the one-brochure that is dispatched to all residents including the manifestos of each candidate.

But both politicians said they believed the interpretation of “irrelevant” was being taken too far and that freedom of speech was under attack ahead of the May 3 polls. The alterations were recommended to materials the candidates submitted to be distributed by the council to all electors in the city.

Trade Union and Socialist candidate Mr Mulhearn was advised that statements about the privatisation of the NHS, and his views on the likelihood of Peel Holdings’ Liverpool Waters plans coming to fruition, should not be included.

Mr Mulhearn said he had included in his material a line stating the “Labour leadership” was implementing coalition cuts, but he was advised to change it to just “the council” by returning officer Ged Fitzgerald and the authority’s legal team.

He also wrote that he would not let “private companies infest the NHS”, but was advised to change the word infest, despite it being defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as “to be present in large numbers, typically so as to cause damage”.

The council claimed the NHS was not relevant to the elected mayor campaign – but still allowed the line to run without the term “infest”.

A reference to the “jam tomorrow” plans for Liverpool Waters was also ruled out. Mr Mulhearn said his team had been warned the reference could lead to legal action by Peel Holdings.

Mr Mulhearn said: “I’ve never known anything like this. It’s just extraordinary. For example, ‘infest’ is in the dictionary, it’s correct use of language.”

The booklet containing addresses from all 12 candidates has already been marred by controversy after National Front candidate Peter “Quiggins” Tierney won the toss to be placed on the first page.

Mr Mulhearn added: “I await with interest to see what the British National Party and the National Front election addresses are allowed to say.”

In reference to Mr Mulhearn’s complaints, a Liverpool council spokesman added: “The Returning Officer has provided supportive advice and guidance to the Mayoral candidates to make sure the wording they provide for the brochure is in keeping with the rules laid down in government legislation.”

A spokesman for the Electoral Commission said: “We would advise the candidates to speak to the Department for Communities and Local Government.”